ICE In Churches? Court Revives Bombshell Case

A federal appeals court just gave 27 churches, synagogues, and Mennonite congregations the green light to sue the government over letting immigration agents operate inside their sanctuaries.

Story Snapshot

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to revive a lawsuit over ending protections for churches from immigration arrests.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ended a policy on January 20, 2025, that had limited arrests at churches, schools, and hospitals since 2011.
The ruling only lets the case move forward. Judges have not yet decided if the policy change breaks religious freedom law.
DHS says the change gives officers more freedom to use judgment, not a green light to target churches.

Decades-Old Protection Gets Erased

Acting DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman signed a memo on January 20, 2025, that wiped out the Biden administration’s 2021 rules protecting “sensitive locations” from immigration enforcement. Those rules had told agents to avoid arrests at churches, schools, hospitals, and other gathering spots unless supervisors approved or special conditions applied. The underlying policy dated back to 2011, meaning the rescission reversed more than a decade of standard practice for federal immigration officers nationwide.

A follow-up directive from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 31, 2025, reportedly gave agents no clear, bright-line rules for handling enforcement near houses of worship. That gap left congregations unsure what protections, if any, still applied to them. Faith groups say the uncertainty alone changed how they operate, prompting some to rethink how they welcome newcomers.

Appeals Court Lets Lawsuit Move Forward

A divided D.C. Circuit panel ruled on October 20 that the religious organizations suing over the policy have standing to sue. The court found the rescinded guidance creates a “credible threat” of enforcement serious enough to warrant judicial review, reversing an April 2025 district court decision that had tossed the case out. The ruling sends the case, Mennonite Church USA v. Department of Homeland Security, back for further proceedings.

The decision matters because it keeps the lawsuit alive, but it does not settle the core legal question. Judges have not ruled on whether immigration enforcement at churches violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment’s protection of free religious exercise. Those claims remain untested, and the case now heads back to lower courts for more argument.

Congregations Say Sanctuary Is at Stake

The Church of the Brethren argued that an enforcement action inside a congregation would “destroy all sense of peace and safety in what is supposed to be a place of sanctuary for congregants.” Plaintiffs say welcoming strangers and immigrants is a core religious practice for them, not just a political stance. Their lawsuit combines claims under federal religious freedom law with First Amendment arguments, giving them more than one legal path forward.

Government Defends Restored Discretion

DHS maintains the rescission does not make churches fair game for raids. A spokesperson said ICE “does not target places of worship” but that an arrest could happen if a dangerous felon fled into one to protect public safety. The agency frames the change as restoring common-sense discretion to officers rather than launching a new enforcement campaign aimed at religious institutions.

Vice President JD Vance has echoed that framing, saying ICE officers are “mostly dedicated patriots” while acknowledging some make mistakes that should be investigated and prosecuted rather than addressed through blanket location restrictions. Vance has argued immigration law must still be enforced against people the administration says are insufficiently vetted, even as he stresses avoiding harm to people simply trying to worship.

Unresolved Questions Remain

Public records do not yet show a documented arrest or raid at any of the plaintiffs’ houses of worship since the policy changed, which leaves the case resting on threatened harm rather than a completed incident. Courts have also drawn a line between public and private church spaces, meaning a full ban on any federal presence inside a church may go further than current law supports. Both sides now await further proceedings to test these claims.